How much difference will 6mm make?

Ravendog · Jan 22, 2009

I have a Nikon 17-55mm lens and a 50mm 1.8 lens I am considering for foreign travel.

I also have recently purchased a Nikon 70-200mm VR but don't think it's wise to take along.

I am considering getting either a Tokina 11-16mm or a Nikon 18-200mm for travel.

How much of a difference will the 6mm make going from the 17mm to the 11mm? Will it be very noticable?

Will purchasing the Tokina 11-16m be more advantageous to me along with 50mm and 17-55 than simply purchasing the 18-200mm and taking along the 50mm?

Would another lens be better to purchase?

All input is welcome.

Thanks.

tribac · Jan 22, 2009

Being on DX, this 6mm becomes 9mm, which is VERY significant on wide angle lenses.

--
Tri-Bac

ZoranC · Jan 22, 2009

Ravendog said:
I have a Nikon 17-55mm lens and a 50mm 1.8 lens I am considering for
foreign travel.
I also have recently purchased a Nikon 70-200mm VR but don't think
it's wise to take along.

I am considering getting either a Tokina 11-16mm or a Nikon 18-200mm
for travel.

How much of a difference will the 6mm make going from the 17mm to the
11mm? Will it be very noticable?

Will purchasing the Tokina 11-16m be more advantageous to me along
with 50mm and 17-55 than simply purchasing the 18-200mm and taking
along the 50mm?

Would another lens be better to purchase?

All input is welcome.

I have recently purchased Tokina 11-16 and I have Nikon 16-85. Difference in field of view is big enough for me, but this is about you, not me, so you might want to try this to get an idea:

http://www.tamron.com/lenses/learning_center/tools/focal-length-comparison.php

Ravendog · Jan 22, 2009

Thanks Zoran, there is quite a difference......

Ravendog · Jan 22, 2009

Ravendog said:
Thanks Zoran, there is quite a difference......

How is your Tokina? Many negative and positive views of it, apparently due to poor samples......

mkrause · Jan 22, 2009

Try this example... Not mine but I think it reflects reality...

http://www.pbase.com/vernix/image/31541666

-MKrause...

http://www.pbase.com/kramerkrause

Long time viewer and pbase supporter...

Ricardson Williams · Jan 22, 2009

I have 17-55 also ...this tokina 11-16 is very good lens and will complement the range well, but I choose diferente way and bought 10.5 fisheye instead Tokina 11-16, yes I know the distortion but I liked!

Did you use before Nikkor 10.5 fisheye?

http://www.flickr.com/photos/ricardsonwilliams/3147528646/

Regards,
Ricardson

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ricardsonwilliams/

ZoranC · Jan 22, 2009

Ravendog said:
Thanks Zoran, there is quite a difference......

You are welcome

ZoranC · Jan 22, 2009

Ravendog said:
How is your Tokina? Many negative and positive views of it,
apparently due to poor samples......

That is why I bought it locally, sales person was nice enought to let me hand pick. While I did pick one that seemed best to my eye I must admit two others (I tried three) were "trailing" by margin that was small.

So far I am very happy with my copy.

ZoranC · Jan 22, 2009

Ricardson Williams said:
I have 17-55 also ...this tokina 11-16 is very good lens and will
complement the range well, but I choose diferente way and bought 10.5
fisheye instead Tokina 11-16, yes I know the distortion but I liked!

I felt 11-16 and 10.5 do not exclude, but complement, each other even when 10.5 is defished so I went for both.

I am glad I did.

mbareetbc · Jan 23, 2009

I have essentially the same lens range set up:

11-16, 17-55, 70-200 with a couple primes also thrown in.

11-16 is a big difference compared to the 17-55. 17-55 is more versatile overall because with 11-16 you can really just get wide shots...portraits or people shots are a bit tough with the 11-16 simply because of the massive wideangle distortion.

if I was travelling, I would take with me the 11-16, 70-200 and 35mm +50mm primes.

covers the whole range jsut about.
--
-Bo
http://www.boandbro.com
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bo_z/

olstrup · Jan 23, 2009

ZoranC said:
Ricardson Williams said:

I have 17-55 also ...this tokina 11-16 is very good lens and will
complement the range well, but I choose diferente way and bought 10.5
fisheye instead Tokina 11-16, yes I know the distortion but I liked!

Click to expand...

I felt 11-16 and 10.5 do not exclude, but complement, each other even
when 10.5 is defished so I went for both.

I am glad I did.

I agree (we can after all agree on something

). I have the 10.5 as well as a Tokina 12-24. The 10.5 can be defished, but the results will not be as sharp in the corners as a true rectlinear WA lens. So they compliment each other. That said, I do occationally bring the 10.5 with defishing in mind, when I want to go really small and light, but it's not ideal.

BTW one can defish the 10.5 pics with "Fisheye Hemi" in only the one plane, so the vertical lines get straight, which helps a lot when shooting people standing near the edge of the pic. Sometimes I like that better than a rectilinear lens, because with the latter the angles gets distorted in the perifery. With the fisheye the angles are more or less preserved while the lines curve. It's first of all the distorted angles that are so disturbing i group portraits with a rectilinear WA lens.

BatuKMan · Jan 23, 2009

Tokina 11-16mm:
Angle of view 104° ~~82°~~

Nikon 17-55mm:
Angle of view: 79º ~~28,50º~~

Quite different as you can see.

Ravendog · Jan 23, 2009

BatuKMan said:
Tokina 11-16mm:
Angle of view 104° ~~82°~~

Nikon 17-55mm:
Angle of view: 79º ~~28,50º~~

Quite different as you can see.

Yes, it's quite a bit wider. Thanks.

ZoranC · Jan 23, 2009

olstrup said:
ZoranC said:

Ricardson Williams said:

I have 17-55 also ...this tokina 11-16 is very good lens and will
complement the range well, but I choose diferente way and bought 10.5
fisheye instead Tokina 11-16, yes I know the distortion but I liked!

Click to expand...

I felt 11-16 and 10.5 do not exclude, but complement, each other even
when 10.5 is defished so I went for both.

I am glad I did.

Click to expand...

I agree (we can after all agree on something ).

LOL We sure can

olstrup said:
I have the 10.5
as well as a Tokina 12-24. The 10.5 can be defished, but the results
will not be as sharp in the corners as a true rectlinear WA lens. So
they compliment each other.

However, those corners are information rectilinear would not give me at all so I will not complain (too much) about lack of sharpness in them, better something than nothing.

olstrup said:
BTW one can defish the 10.5 pics with "Fisheye Hemi" in only the one
plane, so the vertical lines get straight, which helps a lot when
shooting people standing near the edge of the pic. Sometimes I like
that better than a rectilinear lens, because with the latter the
angles gets distorted in the perifery. With the fisheye the angles
are more or less preserved while the lines curve. It's first of all
the distorted angles that are so disturbing i group portraits with a
rectilinear WA lens.

I did not try fisheye for people yet. I do not like results Hemi gave me so far for architecture but I was thrilled with what Capture NX 2 managed to do.

mothman13 · Jan 23, 2009

The Nikon 17-55mm lens has an angle of view of 28.83 - 79 degrees.
The Tokina 11-16mm lens has an angle of view of 104 - 82 degrees.

@ 5 feet and 17mm:
6.85 x 4.6 feet = 31.51 square feet

@ 5 feet and 11mm:
10.65 x 7.1 feet = 75.615 square feet

@ 10 feet
17mm = 13.7 x 9.17 feet
11mm = 21.3 x 14.2 feet

Just double the width and height for each increase of 5 foot shooting distance.

----------------------------------------
Mothman13
http://www.pbase.com/mothman13

Search

How much difference will 6mm make?

Ravendog

Active member

tribac

Well-known member

ZoranC

Veteran Member

Ravendog

Active member

Ravendog

Active member

mkrause

Leading Member

Ricardson Williams

Member

ZoranC

Veteran Member

ZoranC

Veteran Member

ZoranC

Veteran Member

mbareetbc

Senior Member

olstrup

Senior Member

BatuKMan

Leading Member

Ravendog

Active member

ZoranC

Veteran Member

mothman13

Leading Member

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts